Joe Sims wrote,
>With
>respect to the registrar constituency, that was specifically intended as a
>vehicle for accredited registrars to provide their specific input. Since,
>as you point out, there are other ways in which your input can be provided,
>including general public comment in addition to the other constituencies,
>there seems no particular reason to dilute the focus of the registrar
>constituency. To the best of my knowledge, you get no prizes for being in
>a particular constituency, and your voice and views are certainly not
>excluded, so why the fuss?
>
There are two ways to go with this, and I believe that only one way is being
pointed out with this message and with the stance of the registrar
constituency.
Either:
1. ccTLDs, their resellers, agents, and customers play a tangential role in
the ICANN process, restricting their concern to such actions on the part of
ICANN that might impact their ability to run a smooth root zone;
or
2. ccTLDs, their resellers, agents, and customers are welcomed into the
ICANN process, and ccTLDs will pay attention to the broader efforts of ICANN
and will participate.
It appears from Ken Stubb's message and from Joe Sims', that #1 is
indicated. In any case there are many in the ccTLD constituency who feel
that ICANN ought to restrict its activities to gTLDs. If ccTLD registrars
aren't going to be allowed into the registrar constituency, then ICANN
should not expect ccTLDs to pay any attention to ICANN resolution concerning
registrars.
I don't think this will break any hearts among the ccTLDs.
Antony
